Food Systems
In 2013, a scientist grew a hamburger in a lab.
It cost $330,000.
A food critic tasted it on live TV. He paused. Then he said something that changed the meat industry forever.
I’ll tell you what he said at the end of today’s class.
(That’s an open loop. You’ll learn why it works today.)
PRO-CLIMATE
= Transform the Food System
= “Meat is murder (of the planet)”
PRO-DEVELOPMENT
= Improve, Don’t Replace
= “Let people eat what they want”
| PRO-CLIMATE | PRO-DEVELOPMENT |
|---|---|
| Reduce meat consumption | Improve meat production |
| Plant-based is the future | Choice and tradition matter |
| Systemic dietary change | Individual freedom |
| Global emissions focus | Local livelihoods focus |
| Health + planet aligned | Economic stability priority |
This tension defines every food policy debate.
Hong Kong imports 90% of its food.
If shipping stopped tomorrow, we’d have 2 weeks of reserves.
Every meal you eat traveled thousands of kilometers to reach your plate.
Now let’s talk about food systems.
Raise your hand if…
Look around. Remember these numbers.
🥩 Traditional Meat
Factory farms, feedlots, generations of culture
“Real food for real people”
🥬 Plant-Based
Impossible, Beyond, OmniPork, whole foods
“Save the planet, one bite at a time”
🧫 Lab-Grown
Cultured cells, bioreactors, sci-fi made real
“Real meat, no slaughter”
Which one wins? It’s not as obvious as you think.
Think again.
| Food | kg CO₂ per kg |
|---|---|
| Beef (industrial) | 60 |
| Lamb | 24 |
| Cheese | 21 |
| Asparagus (flown from Peru) | 18 |
| Chocolate | 19 |
| Local chicken | 6 |
| Tofu | 2 |
Asparagus flown 10,000km beats local chicken in emissions.
“Eat your vegetables” isn’t always climate advice.
The uncomfortable truth:
The catch: Lab meat is only “green” if powered by renewable energy. Otherwise, you’re just trading cow farts for coal emissions.
Not so fast:
The irony: The same people who won’t eat “processed food” are promoting Impossible Burgers as health food.
| Food | CO₂/kg | Land Use | Water Use | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial Beef | 🔴 60 | 🔴 High | 🔴 High | Worst overall |
| Grass-fed Beef | 🟡 25 | 🔴 Higher | 🟡 Medium | Better, but land-hungry |
| Lab-Grown Meat | 🟡 7-25 | 🟢 Low | 🟢 Low | Depends on energy source |
| Plant-Based Meat | 🟢 4-8 | 🟢 Low | 🟡 Medium | Good, but processed |
| Chicken | 🟡 6 | 🟡 Medium | 🟡 Medium | Often overlooked |
| Tofu/Legumes | 🟢 2 | 🟢 Low | 🟢 Low | Clear winner |
Notice: There’s no single “right answer.” That’s the point.
Scenario 1: Lab-grown char siu is now cheaper than real pork. It tastes identical. Your grandmother says she’d rather die than eat “fake meat” at Chinese New Year.
Do you serve it anyway?
Scenario 2: A study shows that if Hong Kong went fully vegetarian, we’d cut food emissions by 70%. But Sham Shui Po’s last dai pai dong — run by the same family for 60 years — would close.
Do you support the policy?
PRO-CLIMATE says:
“Tradition isn’t an excuse to destroy the planet. Your grandmother’s nostalgia doesn’t outweigh your grandchildren’s future.”
PRO-DEVELOPMENT says:
“You want to save the climate by erasing culture? My grandmother survived the Cultural Revolution. Now you want to take her char siu too?”
Look at the LEFT image (Pro-Climate):
Look at the RIGHT image (Pro-Development):
Key question: Which cover would make YOUR grandmother pick up the magazine?
“Hong Kong should ban the import of factory-farmed meat by 2035.”
PRO-CLIMATE must argue for the ban.
PRO-DEVELOPMENT must argue against.
You have the facts. Now make them feel something.
Fact + Human Story + Stakes = Spectacle
Weak
“Beef production causes emissions”
Better
“1kg beef = 60kg CO₂. 1kg tofu = 2kg.”
Spectacle
“Your steak emits more carbon than your car commute. You grill it on Sundays while lecturing kids to save the planet.”
Don’t say: “Livestock contributes to deforestation.”
Say: “Every burger in Hong Kong has a piece of the Amazon in it. You’re eating rainforest.”
Don’t say: “We should reduce meat consumption.”
Say: “Your grandparents ate meat once a week. Now you eat it twice a day. Guess which generation is destroying the planet?”
Don’t say: “Dietary choices are personal.”
Say: “My grandmother survived famine. Now they want to tell her she can’t have pork at Chinese New Year? That’s not climate action — that’s cultural erasure.”
Don’t say: “Traditional farming supports livelihoods.”
Say: “Kill the cattle industry and you kill 50,000 farmers in the New Territories. Who retrains them? You? The activists?”
Uncle Wong, 63, has fished Hong Kong waters for 40 years. His father did the same. So did his grandfather. His boat is worth less than a parking space in Tai Koo.
Climate activists say his catch is unsustainable. Supermarkets want him to sell farmed salmon instead.
PRO-CLIMATE says: “The fish stocks are collapsing. Wong is part of the problem. Every wild fish he catches accelerates extinction.”
PRO-DEVELOPMENT says: “Wong’s family survived the Japanese occupation, the ’67 riots, and SARS. Now some NGO wants to end his livelihood because of a chart? He can barely afford rent.”
The real question: Who decides what “sustainable” means — the scientist, the politician, or Uncle Wong?
✓ OK to Say
✗ NOT OK
Tutorial Assignments
Notion Portfolios
The food critic took a bite. Paused. Then said:
“It’s close to meat. It’s not that juicy. But the bite feels like a conventional hamburger.”
Not a triumph. Not a disaster. Just… close.
That was 2013. Today, lab-grown meat costs under $10/kg to produce.
Singapore already sells it in restaurants. The US approved it in 2023.
The question isn’t whether it will replace your char siu.
The question is whether your grandmother will eat it.
Throughout this course, you’ll learn 10 persuasion techniques — one per week.
Each technique is grounded in psychology and behavioral science. Each one is used by marketers, politicians, lawyers, and anyone who needs to move people.
By Week 11, you’ll have a complete rhetorical toolkit to engineer arguments that don’t just inform — they persuade.
The goal: Make your climate arguments impossible to ignore.
Each week, at the end of class:
At the start of the following week: Quick callback — did anyone try it?
Let’s begin.
In 1927, a psychologist noticed waiters could remember complex orders perfectly — until the bill was paid.
Then they forgot everything instantly.
This is the Zeigarnik Effect.
The brain can’t let go of incomplete tasks. It allocates background processing — like a browser tab you can’t close.
Netflix forces a 3-second hook before “Skip Intro” appears. Marketers call this an open loop: start a pattern, don’t close it.
The brain will stay to close the loop.
The best presentations today didn’t start with conclusions.
They started with a question. A tension. Something unresolved.
“There’s one fact that made me switch sides on this issue. I’ll get to it.”
Did you stay to hear it? That’s the loop.
Open a loop in your first 10 seconds.
Don’t close it until the end.